vehicle interface technologies, llc v. ford motor company, c.a. no. 12-1284-rga (d. del. jan. 21,...

8/9/2019 Vehicle Interface Technologies, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, C.A. No. 12-1284-RGA (D. Del. Jan. 21, 2015)

1/13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

VEHICLE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES,

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.


LLC,

Plaintiff,

v

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH

AMERICA, LLC,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 12-1284-RGA


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq., BA YARD, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert E. Freitas, Esq. (argued),

Rachel Kinney, Esq., FREITAS ANGELL WEINBERG, Redwood Shores, CA.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Vehicle Interface Technologies, LLC.

Richard K Herrmann, Esq., Mary Matterer, Esq., MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric

A. Buresh, Esq. (argued), Jason R Mudd, Esq., ERISE IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS; J Tracy

Walker, IV, Esq., MCGUIRE WOODS LLP, Richmond, VA.

Attorneys for Defendant Ford Motor Company.

John

W

Shaw, Esq., Stephanie

E

O Byrne, Esq., SHAW KELLER LLP, Wilmington, DE;

Matthew J Moore, Esq. (argued), LATHAM WATKINS LLP, Washington, DC; Clement J.

Naples, Esq., LATHAM WATKINS LLP, New York, NY, Lisa K Nguyen, Esq., Michelle

Woodhouse, Esq., LATHAM WATKINS LLP, Menlo Park, CA.

Attorneys for Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC.

January

Jr

,

015


2/13

Presently before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment based on

anticipation. (D.I. 88).

1

The motions have been fully briefed (D.I. 89, 96 100), and the

parties appeared for oral argument on December 22, 2014 (D.I. 110). During oral argument,

Defendants informed the Court that they had joined each other's motions, and thus presented

their arguments together.

Id.

at 5: 16-18). For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants'

Motions for Summary Judgment, with respect to anticipation, are granted.

2

I.

B CKGROUND

Plaintiff Vehicle Interface Technologies, LLC ( VIT ) brought the current action against

Defendants Ford Motor Company and Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC for patent

infringement on October 5, 2012. (D.I. 1 . VIT is the owner o U.S. Patent No. 6,842,677

( the '677 patent ), and alleges that Defendants' products and services infringe that patent. The

summary

o

the invention states that:

The invention provides user interface systems and methods for a

vehicle. A display is provided to a driver that includes a fixed area

and a selectable area. The fixed area displays vehicle information

such as speed, gas level, mileage, etc. The selectable area displays

a page that includes parameters for one or more optional

subsystems. The desired page can be selected by the driver using

a first set

o

input devices mounted on a side

o

the steering device

(i.e., steering wheel) o the vehicle.

(D.I. 90, Ex. A at 8, 1 57--65). VIT asserts independent claim I, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5,

and 6

o

the '677 patent. (D.I. 89 at

8 .

Claim 1

o

the '677 patent provides:

A user interface system for a vehicle having a steering device, the

system comprising:

I Unless specifically noted otherwise, all citations to the record are to Civil Action No. 12-1285.

2 This opinion does not address Defendants' obviousness or non-infringement arguments.

2


3/13

a plurality of pages, wherein each page includes at least one

parameter for at least one

of

a plurality

of

optional subsystems for

the vehicle;

a display mounted behind the steering device, the display

including a fixed area and a selectable area, wherein the fixed area

displays vehicle information and the selectable area displays one

of

the plurality

of

pages, and wherein the fixed area and the selectable

area each comprise a unique and static portion

of

the display; and

a computing system in communication with the display

device, wherein the computing system operates each of the plurality

of

optional subsystems based on the at least one parameter.

(DJ. 90, Ex. A at 11, 8:47-61 ). The Court issued a claim construction opinion, construing the

term wherein the fixed area and the selectable area each comprise a unique and static portion of

the display to mean wherein the fixed area and the selectable area have non-overlapping and

non-moving boundaries and the fixed area does not display any of the plurality of pages.

D.1.

53

at 5).

Defendants rely on multiple prior art references for their anticipation argument, but I will

focus on the 2001 Mercedes-Benz E-Class ( 2001 Mercedes ). Defendants allege that the 2001

Mercedes was offered for sale, sold, and used as early as February 28, 2001

(DJ.

90, Ex.

~

15), and that the user manual was published on October 31, 2000 Id., Ex. M). The filing date

of the '677 patent was February 28, 2003.

Id.,

Ex. A at 2). VIT does not dispute that the

2001 Mercedes constitutes a prior art reference. D.1. 110 at 6: 14-18).

II LEG LST ND RD

The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as

to

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Fed.

R. Civ.

P.

56(a). The moving party has the initial burden of proving the absence of a genuinely

disputed material fact relative to the claims in question.

Celotex Corp.

v

Catrett,

477 U.S. 317,

3


4/13

330 (1986). Material facts are those that could affect the outcome of the proceeding, and a

dispute about a material fact is 'genuine' if the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury

to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Lamont v New Jersey 637 F.3d 177,

181

(3d Cir.

2011) (quoting Anderson v Liberty Lobby Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The burden on the

moving party may be discharged by pointing out to the district court that there is an absence of

evidence supporting the non-moving party's case. Celotex 477 U.S. at 323.

The burden then shifts to the non-movant to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue

for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co

v

Zenith Radio Corp. 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986);

Williams

v

Borough

o

West Chester Pa.

891F.2d458,

460-61 (3d Cir. 1989). A non

moving party asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed must support such an assertion by: (A)

citing to particular parts

of

materials in the record, including depositions, documents,

electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations , admissions,

interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited (by the

opposing party] do not establish the absence

of

a genuine dispute Fed.

R

Civ.

P

56(c)(l).

When determining whether a genuine issue

of

material fact exists, the court must view

the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable

inferences in that party's favor. Scott v Harris 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Wishkin v Potter

4

76

F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007). A dispute is genuine only if the evidence is such that a

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson 477 U.S. at 247-49.

f he non-moving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case

with respect to which it has the burden

of

proof, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter oflaw. See Celotex Corp. 477 U.S. at 322.

4


5/13

III. DISCUSSION

During oral argument, the parties agreed that the construction

of

the term page

is

the

only matter at issue for determining whether the

2001

Mercedes prior art reference anticipates all

of the asserted claims in the '677 patent. (D.I. 110 at 6:14-18). VIT conceded that ifthe

Court agrees with Defendants' construction of page, then the '677 patent is anticipated by the

2001 Mercedes. Id. at 7:7-22). Therefore, the Court will focus its attention on the

construction

of the term page before addressing anticipation.

A

laim onstruction

1

Legal Standard

It

is

a bedrock principle

of

patent law that the claims

of

a patent define the invention to

which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude. Phillips v. WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,

1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (internal quotation marks omitted). '[T]here is no magic

formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the

appropriate weight to appropriate sources

in

light

of

the statutes and policies that inform patent

law. ' SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at 1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting

Phillips,

415 F.3d at 1324). When construing patent claims, a matter of law, a court considers

the literal language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman

v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane), aff d, 517 U.S.

370 (1996). Of these sources, the specification is always highly relevant to the claim

construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a

disputed term.

Phillips,

415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

5


6/13

[T]he wordsof a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning

[Which is] the meaning that the term would have to a person

of

ordinary skill in the art in

question at the time

of

the invention, i.e., as

of

the effective filing date of the patent application.

Id. at 1312-13 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [T]he ordinary meaning of a

claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.

Id.

at 3 2

(internal quotation marks omitted).

In

some cases, the ordinary meaning

of

claim language as

understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim

construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted

meaning

of

commonly understood words.

Id.

at 1314 (internal citations omitted).

A court may consider extrinsic evidence, which consists of all evidence external to the

patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned

treatises, in order to assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of

terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works. Id. at 1317-19 (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). Extrinsic evidence, however, is less reliable and less useful in

claim construction than the patent and its prosecution history.

Id.

A claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it

defines terms in the context of the whole patent.

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa

per

Azioni,

58 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

t

follows that a claim interpretation that would

exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation.

Osram GmbH

v

Int [ Trade

Comm n,

505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

6


7/13

2. Disputed Term

page

a.

Plaintiff s proposed construction:

One complete full-screen

image, including formatting such as shapes, colors, and rotation

o

fonts.

(D.1.

110 at 48:6-7).

b. Defendants proposed construction: A collection or section

o

information that can be displayed on a screen at one time. (D.1. 100 at 6).

c. Court s construction: A collection or section

o

information

that can be displayed on a screen at one time.

Defendants argue that claim 1

o

the '677 patent only requires a page to include at

least one parameter for at least one

o

a plurality o optional subsystems for the vehicle. (D.I.

90, Ex. A at 11, 8:47-61). Defendants cite element 156 o Figure 2 and element 128 o Figure

4 as illustrative examples o a page in the '677 patent:

I

56

22

/

m

r

1 l 1

FIG f .\f,,. l.\

(Id

at 4 fig.2 6 fig.4

).

The specification provides that [p]age 156 includes various

parameters (i.e., AM, FM, Cassette, CD, etc.) for operating features o the audio subsystem, and

[f]or example, a user can select the cassette parameter 158 and page 156 would change to the

7

page that contains the various parameters for operating a cassette player (shown displayed in

secondary display 128 in FIG. 4). Id at 10, 5:15-17 5:23-27). Defendants maintain that


8/13

nothing in the

677

Patent

or

its prosecution history suggests that

pages

require certain

appearance characteristics, such as shapes, colors or graphics. (D.I. 89 at 12). Defendants

argue that VIT's expert, Michael Nranian, would require a page to be appealing and

aesthetically pleasing, which are both subjective standards that are not supported by the

intrinsic record. (D.1. 90, Ex. G at 12, 318:20-22). Defendants contend that the plain and

ordinary meaning

of

the term page may include text, shapes,

or

graphics, but may also include

text only, as is the case in the page of a book. (D.I. 89 at 12).

VIT relies almost entirely on the Microsoft Computer Dictionary and Mr. Nranian's

testimony to support its proposed construction.

(DJ.

110 at 46: 13-20). Mr. Nranian states in

his report that [a]

page

has appearance characteristics such as shapes, color gradients,

graphical details, etc. to make selectable features more distinct, readable, and sharper, and as t

would be understood as

of

2002, requires more in terms of detail, formatting, etc. than the mere

1-4 lines

of

basic text provided in the message center

of

the Mercedes Benz E-Class.

D.1.

90,

Ex. D 73 & 94). VIT cites the 677 specification for support, which provides that [t]he

identifiers that represent the page currently being displayed can be highlighted i.e., a unique

color, bold, designated location, reverse colors, etc.). Id., Ex. A at 9, 4:63-66).

Additionally, VIT argues that element 156 of Figure 2 contains formatting, consisting of

numerous rows

of

selectable options, multiple fonts (normal and rotated 90 degrees each way)

and is associated with the tree

of

formatted menus surrounding the display. (D

I

96 at

11

).

VIT admits that its proposed construction goes beyond the plain and ordinary meaning

of

the term page. (D.I.

110

at 49:

1-7).

There is nothing in the claims or the specification that

requires a page to be a complete full-screen image,

or

to have a certain degree

of

formatting. The specification passage that VIT cites for support only refers to page

8


9/13

identifiers, not a page, and provides exemplary embodiments, which do not create

limitations for the claim terms. Mr. Nranian's testimony and the Microsoft Computer

Dictionary are both sources of extrinsic evidence, which the Federal Circuit has said

s

less

significant than the intrinsic record. Phillips 415 F.3d at 1317. Further, the Federal Circuit

has made clear that conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition

of

a claim

term are not useful to a court.

Id.

at 1318.

A side-by-side comparison of the accused Ford product and the Lincoln prior art

reference highlights the contradiction between what VIT considers a page for purposes of

infringement, and what it does not consider a page for purposes

of

invalidity:

[ ccused Ford Product] [Lincoln Prior rt]

(D.I. 89 at 16;

see

also

C.A. No. 12-1284, D.I. 91,

Ex Cat

55). It is a well-established

principle that claims are construed the same way for both invalidity and infringement.

Amgen

Inc.

v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc. 314 F.3d 1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Here, the

only difference between the two images above is the relative attractiveness

of

the display

screens. No construction of the term page can incorporate such a fine distinction, so as to

include the page in the accused Ford product, and exclude the page in the Lincoln prior art

reference. Therefore, the claims of the '677 patent could not reasonably be found to be both

valid and infringed when applying a single construction

of

the term page.

9


10/13

I agree with Defendants that VIT's limitation requiring formatting is not supported by

the intrinsic record, and is based solely on Mr. Nranian's unsupported assertions. In my

opinion, VIT's proposal is not even close to being a proper claim construction. Defendants'

proposed construction, on the other hand, is consistent with the broad definition of page in

claim 1

of

the '677 patent, requiring only the inclusion of at least one parameter for at least one

ofa plurality of optional subsystems for the vehicle. Further, Defendants' proposed

construction matches the examples provided in Figures and 4 of the '677 patent, which are

section[s]

of

information that are displayed on a screen at one time. Thus, Defendants'

proposed construction better represents the plain and ordinary meaning

of

the term page, as

understood in the '677 patent. Therefore, I adopt Defendants' proposed construction.

B

nticipation

1

Legal Standard

To show that a patent claim s invalid as anticipated, the accused infringer must show by

clear and convincing evidence that a single prior art reference discloses each and every element

of

a claimed invention.

Silicon Graphics Inc.

v AT Tech.

Inc.

607 F.3d 784, 796 (Fed. Cir.

2010). [E]very element of the claimed invention [must be described], either expressly or

inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without

undue experimentation.

Callaway

GolfCo. v.

Acushnet Co.

576 F.3d 1331, 1346 (Fed. Cir.

2009). As with infringement, the court construes the claims and compares them against the

prior

art.

See Enzo Biochem Inc.

v

Applera Corp.

599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

While anticipation is a question of fact, it may be decided on summary judgment ifth record

reveals no genuine dispute

of

material fact.

Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v Alpine Elecs. of

Am. Inc. 609 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

10


11/13

2. 2 1 Mercedes

Defendants argue that the

2001

Mercedes reference anticipates all

of

the asserted claims

in the '677 patent. (D.I. 89 at 10). Defendants' expert Dr. Paul Green sets forth in his expert

report each element in the asserted claims

of

the '677 patent, and where it is found in the

2001

Mercedes. (D.I. 90, Ex. ~ ~ 32-71). VIT's expert, Mr. Nranian, only contests Defendants'

proof

of

anticipation on the basis that the 2001 Mercedes does not disclose page. (/d., Ex. D

91-98). During oral argument, VIT agreed that construing the term page was the only

remaining issue

to

determine whether the 2001 Mercedes anticipates the asserted claims

of

the

'677 patent. (DJ. 110 at 6:14-18). Further, VIT agreed that

ifthe

Court adopts Defendants'

construction of page, then the 2001 Mercedes anticipates the asserted claims

of

the '677

patent. Id. at 7:15-22). The Court has construed page to mean

"a

collection or section

of

information that can be displayed on a screen at one time. Applying the Court's construction,

the 2001 Mercedes contains the following menus for optional subsystems, which meet the

Court's definition

of

page :

5

6

7

TEMP

IHDICATOR

DISPLAY U LUES ii

rg _

T XT

-

Bs

-

Kt

-

;i

.

IDI

-

a ~ k i i l '

(D.I. 90, Ex.

Mat p AOl

99). Therefore, there is no genuine issue

of

material fact with regard

to

anticipation, and the Court finds that all of the asserted claims in the '677 patent are

anticipated by the

2001

Mercedes.

11


12/13

IV

ON LUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court will grant Defendants Motions for Summary

Judgment on the basis

o

anticipation. A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum

Opinion will be entered.

2


13/13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT

O

DELAWARE


LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.


LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH

AMERICA, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER



The Court having considered Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment (C.A. No. 12-

1284, D.I. 85 C.A. No. 12-1285, D.I. 88), as well as the papers filed in connection therewith;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment are

GR NTED with respect to anticipation.

sJ

Entered this

J \

y of January, 2015.

vehicle interface technologies, llc v. ford motor company, c.a. no. 12-1284-rga (d. del. jan. 21,...

Documents